-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
Allow freezing of Core.MethodTables
#56143
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could be nice to have analogous functionality for unsealing a method table as well.
e081672 to
d3cb661
Compare
Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <[email protected]>
d3cb661 to
6284eab
Compare
Core.MethodTablesCore.MethodTables
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
|
i guess the analyzegc failure is due to me not being familiar with atomics ordering, will check tomorrow |
194b573 to
7eb6711
Compare
7eb6711 to
b8f989c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SGTM, but would probably be good to hear from @JeffBezanson or @Keno or triage if they have thoughts about the API here? The gc-analyzer looks like you can fix it by adding assert(mt != NULL) there. I don't really know why it is triggering from this, but that should make it happy
There is also a core test that needs to be fixed (adding this field to the list of atomic fields)
Thanks, that fixed it it locally. I could not make sense out of this either. |
|
|
The feature may still be interesting, but the implementation details this relied on no longer exist, so there wouldn't be any way to rebase this |
Implements the idea from #54138 (comment).
A follow-up PR would apply it to some relevant functions in Base.